Forums

Why would someone play the same scenario from the same side continuously? We all have our favourerd scenarios but there are a marvelous array of challenges in different theatres. Warsaw as axis time after time, not my idea of a good time

I didn't check who you are referring to in this case, but don't worry so much about those situations, Stevie; there are loads of reasons why a player would want to stay at the top of some ranking the easy way: to win a bet with a friend, to get a personal kick from that, to prove to someone that unbalanced scenarios suck, to make sure that his mental capacities are still ok, to playtest the scenario to death, etc, etc...
And the most important thing, any player has all the right to play any map he wishes, for any side he wishes, for as long as he wishes.
In my humble opinion, there are worse situations going on, in M44O, like veteran players being rude in the chat box, not playing a rematch when they guaranteed they would do it, giving up on a game and moving forward with their troops without shooting..

Aaaah, but that's the beauty of it, Van Voort: when playing vs the AI, you will win a lot more than 50% in that scenario. And since the average win rate is so balanced, you get extra points for your victories. That's the phenomena that recently allowed me to climb to #5 in the expert ranking and that allowed Vercingetorix1302 to climb to #3 - although I'm sure that in both cases climbing in the ranking was not the objective.
There are scenarios where the AI's aggressiveness will work in your favor and you can take advantage of it in terms of points and rankings.

You don't play a 50:50 scenario as only one side if you are trying to get an advantage for ranking

Maybe if you are trying to win the scenario as that side for whatever reason (promotion, historian quest, etc)

But some people do play a 50-50 scenario from only one side to gain in the rankings if there is a strategy that slants the scenario heavily in favor of that one side.

For example, Warsaw was historically a 50-50 scenario, on average. However, certain players discovered that by focusing their fire and depriving the Allies of units to shoot at, Axis can win most of the time, often by lopsided scores. The Allies can do the same at Hellfire. I've sometimes seen unexceptional players at the top of the rankings because of this strategy.

A friend once told me about his encounter with such a "specialist." The opponent didn't respond to his inquiry about "2 games." And after winning the first game, he said he needed to handle an emergency that had just arisen.

Perhaps other people would like to share their stories. (Edit: Just describe the behavior. No names, please!)

A friend once told me about his encounter with such a "specialist." The opponent didn't respond to his inquiry about "2 games." And after winning the first game, he said he needed to handle an emergency that had just arisen.

Perhaps other people would like to share their stories.

I really don't think sharing stories about frustrating players is going to serve any purpose. Add them to your ignore list and move on.

A friend once told me about his encounter with such a "specialist." The opponent didn't respond to his inquiry about "2 games." And after winning the first game, he said he needed to handle an emergency that had just arisen.

Perhaps other people would like to share their stories.

I really don't think sharing stories about frustrating players is going to serve any purpose. Add them to your ignore list and move on.

Notice that I didn't include the name of the player in question, though I easily could have. I'm not looking to embarrass anybody. I should have clearly articulated that.

Many players find it frustrating to spend a half hour or more being plinked to death and unable to safely move -- and even more frustrating when the opponent unexpectedly disappears before they have a chance to turn the tables.

If stories like this can show them the warning signs to save them from a half hour of frustration, I think that's a very useful purpose.

Notice that I didn't include the name of the player in question, though I easily could have. I'm not looking to embarrass anybody. I should have clearly articulated that.

Many players find it frustrating to spend a half hour or more being plinked to death and unable to safely move -- and even more frustrating when the opponent unexpectedly disappears before they have a chance to turn the tables.

If stories like this can show them the warning signs to save them from a half hour of frustration, I think that's a very useful purpose.

I did notice that you didn't use names and I appreciate it! I would find it frustrating too; nobody wants to spend half an hour losing a game and then not get to try from the other side. But I don't see how talking about it and giving "warning signs" will help anyone avoid it from happening.

The victim would still have to sit through a match (or they could quit the match) but once you're in, the warning signs won't do anybody any good. My concern is that sharing stories will just become a gripe session that doesn't do anyone any good. But who knows, I could be wrong...

To each his own. Yes, there are players out there who go for different goals. Some try to promote as quickly as possible, others want as much achievements as they can. Some want to be in the top rankings and others want to never ever loose. I say more power to them. I myself am now working my way through all SFTF scenarios trying to win them from both sides. (Mostly against Hermann/Johnny because there are not always humans around and some of the scenarios I do not dare invite people to because they can be a waste of gold ingots. )

When it effects gameplay and makes it boring, as in the examples stated above, it will not make me very happy. On the other hand I will get very motivated (yes even more than usually ) to win that particular game. And have succeeded in doing so, but only sometimes.

However, and this is a big however, those encounters have been few and far between. Mostly I find myself fighting people who love the game and enjoy a good one, even if they loose. And yes, I do have some players I like to play just a little bit more than others. They are my buddies.

Notice that I didn't include the name of the player in question, though I easily could have. I'm not looking to embarrass anybody. I should have clearly articulated that.

Many players find it frustrating to spend a half hour or more being plinked to death and unable to safely move -- and even more frustrating when the opponent unexpectedly disappears before they have a chance to turn the tables.

If stories like this can show them the warning signs to save them from a half hour of frustration, I think that's a very useful purpose.

I did notice that you didn't use names and I appreciate it! I would find it frustrating too; nobody wants to spend half an hour losing a game and then not get to try from the other side. But I don't see how talking about it and giving "warning signs" will help anyone avoid it from happening.

The victim would still have to sit through a match (or they could quit the match) but once you're in, the warning signs won't do anybody any good. My concern is that sharing stories will just become a gripe session that doesn't do anyone any good. But who knows, I could be wrong...

I was the "friend" who told sam the story and the name.
I did so in a private conversation where we discussed several players. Who's good, who has some original tactics, who do we like to play against, against who do we have difficulties winning. And also: against who did we have a bad experience. It was not a gripe session. I agree that they are bad for the community. And even worse is public crucifiction ...

I was the "friend" who told sam the story and the name.
I did so in a private conversation where we discussed several players. Who's good, who has some original tactics, who do we like to play against, against who do we have difficulties winning. And also: against who did we have a bad experience. It was not a gripe session. I agree that they are bad for the community. And even worse is public crucifiction ...

Private conversations are exactly where these stories would be good to share. In fact, I don't even have a problem complaining about a player who was really frustrating and telling a friend about it so they can avoid the same frustration. But on a public forum, these same stories take a different meaning and make for a negative-feeling forum.

I'm sure Sam did not intend to create a negative feeling forum.
He just used the example to argue his point of view that a 50-50 scenario can be played to get skill point advantage.

I agree with him on this.
If you become an expert on a scenario that is very tactical/strategical (opposed to very luck based), you can best alot of opponents who might not be experts almost all of the time, even if the scenario is 50-50.
You can become an expert on just one side of the scenario, or on both sides. If you get expert on both sides, you can play 2 game matches to improve your rankings, but if you are only expert on one side, you'd have to resort to only playing one side.

An indication of this, is that alot of high ranking players (including myself) play mostly/only tactical scenarios and avoid the luck based scenarios.
If, on top of that, you want to be honorfull and play both sides, you have to pick the tactical scenarios with a win loss ratio close to 50-50. (lisyanka, hellfire, cobra, RBF, ...)
I play mostly 50-50 scenarios with a high aspect of tactics because I simply prefer those scenarios. The result is that I generally have a rather good ranking.

I know that Sam was not intending to create a negative forum. I have the highest respect for him and I understand how frustrating it can be to play annoying players. These kinds of players can be found in all games (face-to-face and online, Memoir '44 or other games).

My point is simply that we don't need to fall into the trap of sharing horror stories about online play because inevitably someone will start to bring up names (not one of us, but new players might without knowing that this isn't that kind of community). The stories would not serve a useful purpose. Private conversations are more appropriate for the stories.

Thank to everyone (including Sam) for keeping this such a positive and supportive community by not naming frustrating players or telling negative stories about people you're played against. It would indeed be so easy to do, but the fact that we don't do that here makes this forum and this community stand out from all others!

But some people do play a 50-50 scenario from only one side to gain in the rankings if there is a strategy that slants the scenario heavily in favor of that one side.

For example, Warsaw was historically a 50-50 scenario, on average. However, certain players discovered that by focusing their fire and depriving the Allies of units to shoot at, Axis can win most of the time, often by lopsided scores. The Allies can do the same at Hellfire. I've sometimes seen unexceptional players at the top of the rankings because of this strategy.

I'm having flash backs to the time when I got accused of not being sporting playing Mantinaku as the marines because I did not leave cover and charge across open ground into the teeth of the Japanese.

Apparently because I have a different strategy to Johnny that's considered to be unsporting.

The sportsmanship Inquisition get a bit zealous sometimes, similarly the "you must always play a re-match or you are an evil person" idea.

However, considerations like this are why I weighted the year end ratings by rank and achievement.

"I'm having flash backs to the time when I got accused of not being sporting playing Mantinaku as the marines because I did not leave cover and charge across open ground into the teeth of the Japanese."

That accusation is nonsense. What were the arguments, van Voort? Can you provide the link to the corresponding thread? I'm curious

"The sportsmanship Inquisition get a bit zealous sometimes, similarly the "you must always play a re-match or you are an evil person" idea."

I won't argue with that: my friends keep accusing me of being over zealous about many issues
But about the rematch issue, I just think that if a player commits and he ends up not being capable of doing it, he should always provide an explanation to his opponent, either in the chat box or via private message, later.

But some people do play a 50-50 scenario from only one side to gain in the rankings if there is a strategy that slants the scenario heavily in favor of that one side.

For example, Warsaw was historically a 50-50 scenario, on average. However, certain players discovered that by focusing their fire and depriving the Allies of units to shoot at, Axis can win most of the time, often by lopsided scores. The Allies can do the same at Hellfire. I've sometimes seen unexceptional players at the top of the rankings because of this strategy.

I'm having flash backs to the time when I got accused of not being sporting playing Mantinaku as the marines because I did not leave cover and charge across open ground into the teeth of the Japanese.

Apparently because I have a different strategy to Johnny that's considered to be unsporting.

The sportsmanship Inquisition get a bit zealous sometimes, similarly the "you must always play a re-match or you are an evil person" idea.

However, considerations like this are why I weighted the year end ratings by rank and achievement.

Exactly, who knows why people do what they do! If I am invited or vice versa, to play, I expect at least one match at minimum, if rematch offered before or after,the better, not always the case, hopefully a victory for me and move on if not.

I always make my intentions known in that respect, if time for only one or two, my opponent will know and can choose to play or not, no harm, no foul, always someone willing to play one if not two!

As for the "EXPERTS", well, we shouldn't begrudge them that fact, all manner of EXPERTS in this world, that is what makes them who they are! Usually limited to one subject matter, or SME's in my line of work, but not always.

Can chose to be one or go the other way, "Jack of all trades, Master of none"! Know it all in one area or be well versed, it depends on the person's choice.

As for you leaving cover, why?!!! That would be like leaving your bomb shelter during an air raid to go outside to enjoy the fireworks show! Might enjoy, but probably not for long!

That accusation is nonsense. What were the arguments, van Voort? Can you provide the link to the corresponding thread? I'm curious

In the interests of not naming names I've PM'ed you.

Quote:

But about the rematch issue, I just think that if a player commits and he ends up not being capable of doing it, he should always provide an explanation to his opponent, either in the chat box or via private message, later.

Agreed, if you agree up front to do so, follow though, or have a good explanation afterwards.

But real life happes, some people only want to play one side for promotion or historian quests (and that is usually the unfavoured side)

If you don't want to, say so up front or offer to take the weaker side.

I keep a list of my opponents, what we've played and if there's an open rematch yet to be played. This can avoid some of these problems. I'll just say, "How about we play our rematch," or "We've already played that scenario."

If the player who's losing leaves/disconnects and doesn't return is he "gaming the game" in the hopes that I'll quit and he won't get a loss? After a couple minutes I'll open another window to see if he's returned but playing someone else.

I've had bad connection problems in the past, so want to give the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, if I disconnect 1st or 2nd turns, it's no fun to continue if Johnny played my best card too soon and came out of bunkers/sandbags. Some people have said they've paid their G.I.s and must continue, not realizing they get them back. If it's the 1st or 2nd turn and my opponent leaves, I'll try to go to the wait screen quickly, so Johnny doesn't ruin their game. I've only encountered one person who quit on the first turn and didn't come back, I think because he didn't like his starting hand. (That week he did it to my buddy, too).

Also there were a lot of "broken" SFTF that I didn't want to finish, and this cost me honor points, even when my opponent was agreeable about quitting.

It's a lot less frustrating here to play against one opponent who leaves/disconnects during the game than in a 3 or 4-player game online. There after 2 min it's opened to a substitute. But if a sub doesn't show up we have to decide whether to wait or quit the game. I guess that's one reason why people choose 3-player games over 4-player games.

This whole discussion actually changed my somewhat gamey attitude! Thanks for that. I like to adopt the motto of Jeronimon and stick by it! Thanks also for the wise words about what to say and not to say in the forum, I totally agree.

My long rows of solo play of Pegasus and Juno stem mainly from a temporary lack of money , but with my next salary I will buy tons of ingots and access to the scenario editor . (I did find out though that the best way to win Pegasus against Johnny is to retreat two hexes with Major Howard, and one with his flanking units on the first move!)